This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/04/2019 at 17:16:46 (UTC).

THE PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA VS ELLA AVERY SMOTHERS, ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/21/2012 THE PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against ELLA AVERY SMOTHERS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ALLAN J. GOODMAN, NANCY L. NEWMAN, H. CHESTER HORN, JR., CRAIG D. KARLAN, LISA HART COLE and GERALD ROSENBERG. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8165

  • Filing Date:

    08/21/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ALLAN J. GOODMAN

NANCY L. NEWMAN

H. CHESTER HORN, JR.

CRAIG D. KARLAN

LISA HART COLE

GERALD ROSENBERG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

BANK OF CALIFORNIA

PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA THE

BANC OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants

AVERY LOPEZ

FINANCE CORPORATION

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL FRANCHISE

METRO MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INC.

OMNI FOODS INC.

SMOTHERS ELLA AVERY

SMOTHERS RONSON

LOPEZ AVERY

Others

FREITAG KRISTA

CALIFORNIA FOOD MANAGEMENT LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

DOWDALL TYLER R.

EPPORT RICHMAN & ROBBINS

Defendant Attorneys

QUARLES & BRADY LLP

CHRIS CAMPBELL

VEGA JOYCE H.

JEROME P. BURGER

NICOLAI ADAM C.

FINLAYSON WILLIAMS TOFFER ROOSEVELT LILLY

KRAUSE-LEEMON DAVID R.

BURGER JEROME P.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

CAMPBELL CHRIS

SADRI TONY S.

GUSTAFSON JOHN RYAN

LILLY FINLAYSON WILLIAMS TOFFER ROOSEVELT

Other Attorneys

VEIGUELA PETER J.

5 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

Request for Judicial Notice

8/10/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Attorney Fees

8/10/2018: Motion for Attorney Fees

Opposition

8/31/2018: Opposition

Reply

9/7/2018: Reply

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/04/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Ruling on Submitted Matter (Ruling on Submitted Matter; Court Makes Order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • at 08:59 AM in Department P; Unknown Event Type - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • at 08:59 am in Department WEP, Nancy L. Newman, Presiding; Motion - Other (FOR ADDITIONAL AWARD OF ATTORNEYSFEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING ANDENFORCING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;) - Matter is taken under submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem ((OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE: JASMINE JAMILI, LICENSE #13742) ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Reply In Support of Motion for Additional Award of Attorneys' Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Reply; Filed by BANC OF CALIFORNIA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Reply (AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR IN SUPPORT OF MOTIN FOR ADDITIONAL AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES ); Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • Opposition (TO BANK'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • Opposition To Bank's Motion for Attornets' Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
1,221 More Docket Entries
  • 10/29/2012
  • Amendment to Complaint (DOE 1 AND DOE 51 OMNI FOODS, INC. ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2012
  • Answer; Filed by RONSON SMOTHERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2012
  • Answer; Filed by ELLA AVERY SMOTHERS (Defendant); METRO MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS,INC. (Defendant); AVERY LOPEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2012
  • Answer (VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS ELLA AVERY-SMOTHERS, METRO MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., AND AVERY LOPEZ, LLC ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2012
  • Answer (VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2012
  • Complaint; Filed by PRIVATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff); BANC OF CALIFORNIA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2012
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC118165    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: P

 

The Private Bank of California v. Ella Avery Smothers et al. CASE NUMBER: SC118165

HEARING DATE: 8/29/2019

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees

TENTATIVE RULING

Judgment was entered for plaintiff /judgment creditor The Private Bank of California in May 2015. In satisfaction of this judgment and another related judgment, the parties signed a settlement agreement requiring defendants to sell four Burger King restaurants and apply the proceeds towards the judgments. The settlement contained an attorney’s fees clause.

After the sale of the restaurants, defendants sought disgorgement of $555,000.00 in sale proceeds; the court denied the motion. Plaintiff then filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement, and judgment debtors filed a motion to tax costs. In August 2018, the Bank filed a motion for an additional award of attorneys’ fees, seeking to recover fees incurred in its efforts to enforce the settlement and its previous fee award. That motion was denied without prejudice, with the court instructing the Bank to file the instant motion and requiring the Bank to demonstrate all fees sought were attributable to collection efforts under the settlement agreement.

Once a party is awarded attorneys’ fees, the award is treated like a judgment and additional fees incurred in collecting the award are also recoverable if they are “reasonable and necessary.” Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 635. “A court may not rubber stamp a request for attorney’s fees but must determine the number of hours reasonably expended.” Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 271.

Via this motion, plaintiff does not seek a specific fee award, but rather a general order stating it is entitled to recover fees incurred enforcing the prior fee order. Defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s entitlement to such fees, but argue the motion should be denied because plaintiff has not set forth the number of hours reasonably expended. Defendant is correct. Granting plaintiff’s motion would have no effect, since a determination that plaintiff is entitled to recover some fees does not mean that plaintiff is entitled to recover all claimed fees. This motion is premature—plaintiff must set forth the amount of fees claimed and explain why the amount is reasonable and necessary. DENIED without prejudice.